Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @04:10PM
from the we're-not-evil-any-more dept.

Avalon73 writes "I've been using Skype for Asterisk (Digium's native Skype client for their PBX software) since it was in beta 2 years ago. Today, I received an email from Digium stating that Skype (read: Microsoft) has decided to end the agreement that made the integration possible, and Digium will stop selling the module on July 26th. Support for us existing users will be there for the next 2 years, with Skype's option to renew at that time, but I'll believe that when I see it. So much for Microsoft's promise not to screw over the existing Skype user base."

Written chat ?
Seriously, the guys that hate that are usually the same kind of person that are uncomfortable with the idea that conversations are logged and that you are allowed to think a while before answering.

Define "halfway decent". Can I do what I could do with Skype? That is, can I connect from behind pretty much any NAT router to anyone else in the world behind pretty much any NAT router of their own, using a central service only for control?

End to end communication when both endpoints are behind NAT is a tricky problem. I don't know the skype protocol, did skype actually solve the problem, are the sessions truly end to end, NAT to NAT without the central server doing any proxying?

SIP by itself cannot solve the problem when both endpoints are behind a NAT without specifically forwarded ports, but it does work well when properly configured and only one side is NAT'd, which is classically the case with any protocol.

Halfway decent is hard to define. If it works, it's halfway decent at the minimum, heh. Most of your off the shelf consumer linksys, netgear, etc routers will handle passing sip just fine. Every so often you may run into a box that just fails miserably.

More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.

It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.

More than likely, this is just a cost saving measure by Skype to improve the books for the merger. Microsoft would have no say in such a minor thing at this point. The deal still has to go through FTC approval before Microsoft has any control over operations.

It makes no sense why Microsoft would even care at this point. In fact, from Microsoft's perspective, the more money skype loses the better, as it drives the price down. Skype itself is the only one that would micro-manage this at this point.

Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.

Or disgruntled people among the executive ranks of Skype knew that people would come up with conspiracy theories by playing such a hand and are now cackling as not only do they walk away with millions but get to see Microsoft painted as the bad guy yet again!

Except if there is any kind of monkey business like prior collusion and such can cause serious issues with the merger. I know that the major tech merger I was involved in had the two companies all but ignoring one another for almost a year until the merger was complete.

Microsoft paid over market value because most of that big pile of cash they are sitting on was made out side of the US and they can't bring it into the US without paying taxes on it. That is why the calls for bigger dividends are being ignored.

So the game plan is to buy some thing out side of the US that may boost the value of some thing with in the US. That way they can avoid paying taxes. There aren't that many large companies that fit the bill. Skype based in Switzerland fits the bill nicely.

Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.

Yes im sure MS were so concerned about protecting that great image they have in the eyes of Asterisk users that they paid way over market price just to protect it.

Or Skype knows that Microsoft wants these skype clients dropped and one explanation for paying so much over market price for skype could be that part of the "deal" is that Skype drops support for what Microsoft doesn't want before the purchase. That way, Microsoft can honestly say they didn't drop support for Asterisk or Linux or whatever. Happens all the time in mergers and acquisitions: "We really would like to purchase our company, but the operations in xyz create a real problem for us." Next thing you know, there aren't any operations in xyz.

Yes im sure MS were so concerned about protecting that great image they have in the eyes of Asterisk users that they paid way over market price just to protect it.

I think you've misconstrued the quote you've replied to. Dropping Asterisk support post-acquisition might very well have an effect outside the intended market for Asterisk integration. Much of the Mac userbase for Skype is already up in arms over the Skype 5.0 interface, and fear that MS might drop Skype's support for platforms that MS does not control is broadly based.

However, protecting Skype's reputation with Asterisk users (or Mac users, for that matter) might be the reason for insisting this be done be

The Microsoft/Skype deal is nowhere near completion, and Microsoft currently has no say in how Skype runs their business. Also the negotiations on this software were most likely ongoing long before the Microsoft/Skype merger was announced, and most likely a business decisions based on profit margins and longevity.
I can't help but wonder why people are so quick to blame Microsoft for issues that they could not possible be responsible for.

Because it's Slashdot, and they're Microsoft. Duh. You're right of course. At this point not even sucking up to the potential new boss by killing some program he probably won't like doesn't even make sense. There are enough regulatory and other hurdles between here and "Microsoft takes possession of Skype" that doing any kind of actions based on that assumption is silly.

You really think the purchasing company has no influence over the company they're buying? They can make specific upcoming business decisions paramount to buy out! You have no idea whether or not Microsoft had something to do with this decision. I can't help but wonder why you think you do.

Actually, while the deal is pending, Microsoft is legally prohibited from exerting influence over Skype. Until the deal goes through, Microsoft has less influence over Skype than they had before the deal.

I really wish we (the entire world, its not unique to the US) we just a LITTLE less selfish on the extreme ends. A little selfishness is a good thing for the species, competition helps, but we really just need to nop off the top few percent of the greediest that cause this sort of problem.

For real? Asterisk is extremely pervasive from what I've seen. The only place it's NOT pervasive is among hobbyists who a) have no need for a PBX type system and b) have no idea how to get it to interface with anything interesting.

For real? Asterisk is extremely pervasive from what I've seen. The only place it's NOT pervasive is among hobbyists who a) have no need for a PBX type system and b) have no idea how to get it to interface with anything interesting.

Hint: google voice uses asterisk.

Asterisk is often used as a replacement for expensive vendor PABX's in small businesses that can afford a full time sysadmin. When 20 user key systems can cost upwards of $7K with no support, free* seems cheap.

There's even a drop in replacement with a usable GUI for people with little knowledge of Linux/CLI (Asterisk Now IIRC).

* free isn't free, but a sysadmin's time is cheaper then a Siemens consultant.

This has nothing to do with Microsoft, that is just troll bait. The deal isn't completed yet, they are awaiting regulatory approval before going through with it, and that is likely months away. This is Skype running as Skype, completely independent from Microsoft. Any interference at this stage and scrutiny would be an infraction even Microsoft wouldn't risk.

This is Skype running as Skype, completely independent from Microsoft.

Unless you work for one of those two companies you cannot possibly know that.

Any interference at this stage and scrutiny would be an infraction even Microsoft wouldn't risk.

Having been involved myself with a few mergers and the negotiations thereof I can definitely say that it is definitely plausible that Microsoft would have requested killing the product. I have no idea if they actually did and no proof either but it is certainly possible and wouldn't be terribly surprising. Such conditions can be explicit parts of the deal or they can be simple verbal requests. It's not at all unusual for compani

Considering just how much existing VoIP crap (including Microsoft's) runs over SIP, has anyone considered that it's possible that Skype simply decided to kill off the third party hack and focus on building native SIP connectivity? It would certainly jibe with their sudden desire to look more appealing to business users, with the ability to plug into virtually any IP-PBX solution in existence (and let's be honest, in the corporate world no-one runs Asterisk).

Funny, if Google had bought Skype and this same thing had happened, people would all be describing it as I just did. But hey, don't let rational thought get in the way of your hate-fest.

with the ability to plug into virtually any IP-PBX solution in existence

Clearly you've never actually tried to integrate SIP stacks. The hurdles, workarounds, configuration, and general nightmare still end up unworkable far too often. SIP is very flexible -- which means it's not necessarily compatible.

I'm not sure where you get your info from, but asterisk is extremely pervasive, either as a complete replacement for phone systems (small business) to OEM'd interfaces (too many to count) to partial replacements for portions of existing calling systems (a similar way to how Linux crept into IT infrastructure). Hell, tons of those offshore call centers are based around asterisk and its queue features.

Skype for Asterisk is far from a third party hack. It was designed around the Skype Engine API, at a time when Skype was not providing access to that API to the general public (I think they still aren't providing that level of access). In fact, Skype approached Mark Spencer (original programmer of Asterisk), not the other way around. So while the integration was largely written by Digium programmers, the Skype connector has always been a direct project of Skype's.

Microsoft has been a long time supporter and implementer of SIP throughout their entire messaging stack, from exchange up, it integrates reasonably well with most other vendors too, though with something like SIP no 2 vendors are ever "exactly" the same.

How inter-operable is it with standard SIP?They have a long history of the 3Es.

Fairly. It's been a while since I played with their stuff, but it is pretty easy to make things work. They have some freaky things in there (or did), but so do a lot of people. SIP is a kind of nightmare where people are *encouraged* to extend it in new and unusual ways. Writing a SIP client/server is a bit challenging because everybody does everything differently. Occasionally a new spec is barfed out and then half the people move over to that. But this just makes your job harder because you now have

Sure, I understand that Microsoft implements SIP and RTP in these products, just like Exchange implements SMTP and IMAP. But they now own the other side of the conversation - meaning that it appears you'll need a Microsoft Windows Server-based gateway to bridge SIP and Skype. This is a different proposition than a $70 licence (per channel/session, I think), which is the current cost of running the Asterisk/Skype gateway. Skype as a closed protocol is now owned by a company whose business model historical

Which actually proves the point rather effectively. Skype could simply have decided that their native SIP offering was sufficient to meet the needs of IP-PBX users and to kill off the duplication to avoid confusion. Asterisk is compatible with SIP endpoints after all, yes?

We got screwed at work after bought Onfolio. First, they discontinued the pro version we bought and were using in Firefox in favor of a free dumbed down IE only version, then they eventually killed that. Wouldn't mind too much, but they also turned off the activation servers, meaning if we have to reinstall Windows due to, say, a virus, we can't reinstall the copy Onfolio we had bought. I guess we hit the "Extinguish" stage of the business plan.

im a web developer, and i have been contacting with my clients through skype when they chose it. now, i will be moving out of skype and to other instant messenger / voip applications. i have numerous clients, and will probably have a lot of clients into the future at this rate, and i have the clout and goodwill to require them to contact me without skype.

Seriously, some people need to realise that microsoft is a BUSINESS. Asterisk = compete with Lync. Skype = now microsoft owned. Why the hell would they continue development of one of their products to help kill another one of their products?

Is this crap for asterisk / asterisk users? Yes. However Microsoft would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do to their shareholders if they were to continue killing the market for their own product(s) by enabling/maintaining it.

No, I see a lot of this crap for a number of different subjects, but this was just one of the most direct and unsubtle I've seen in a while. I'm not sure what you're suggesting with the "M$-goggles" comment though. Are you implying I'm some sort of Microsoft apologist or shill?

The problem here is there is nothing to really indicate that Microsoft is "indirectly influencing operations" regardless of the legality involved. Just because Microsoft is currently in a deal to purchase Skype doesn't mean everything

not affecting the majority does not imply not screwing the userbase. Particularly of paying customers. I use skype for linux. I am not part of the majority, and when they drop support for linux and change the protocols, guess what: I'll be a screwed customer. Customers are not only the majority slice.

The big thing is it's microsoft not even waiting a few weeks before yanking support for things. Because they are not a majority does not mean it isn't a huge issue. Next will most likely be the linux client, possibly followed by the android and IOS apps, in the end we could be looking at skype being windows and Windows phone only.

The only people who use Skype are people too cheap to pay for a real phone call. No one anywhere that matters uses Skype to communicate. It may dominate the 'shitty VoIP services' market, but again, no one cares.

VoIP over the Internet is a retarded plan until the network infrastructure has proper QoS support, until then its a crap shoot while you hope that congestion doesn't ruin the call or disconnect you.

I find it hard to believe that you're not just trolling. But on the off chance that you're not...

My company uses Skype to conference call with overseas clients. It's nothing to do with the avoided cost of a 'real' phone call (which is insignificant compared to consultant time) and everything to do with universal availability, video conference ability and ease of use making it a better option than a 'real' phone call.

Exactly why I'm very worried about this.
Here's my prediction just in case it really happens, so I can link yo it and appear to be a keen industry analyst: over the next year MS will start changing Skype's protocol, until it's incompatible with current software.
The Windows version will (of course) always be up to date while other platforms will lag behind, according to their userbase: macos will be fine, android and ios a bit less so, and Linux will simply be forgotten.
This will enable them to slowly k

Like what is so special in skype? Is it that hard to code another one?

Skype was the first to get good market adoption and thus sort of became the de-facto standard so there is a good chance that you can use it to speak to someone. It might not be the best, but it works well enough for most people to not feel the need to change (with all the effort that that entails). In some ways it is like MS Windows, the de-facto desktop standard, not the best but good enough for most people.

It's not that easy. I seldom use Skype to communicate with friends and never with relatives. I use it mostly for business, to get in touch with my customers and my coworkers (both chat and voice). I can't tell them that they have to start using a new messaging platform only to communicate with me. It will be very inconvenient and they'll invite me to call them with a phone which will cost me money and I'll still be left without a chat. They'll hate to have to spend money to call me so this is bad for my bus

You may rest assured that in those 2 years you will not receive any updates whatsoever, neither for security nor compatibility. Whether you will be able to renew or not is also something you may start to believe once those 2 years are over.

Yes you will, Digum has support contract (which is the 2 years they are covering) which require security fixes as part of the contract.

You may not get any new features, but the whole reason people PAY for support contracts is to ensure they will get support for a minimum period of time. The contracts define that level of support. Digum's support contracts are pretty good (I've admined a asterisk setup for a small company), I expect they'll take good care of their customers in the interim and use this as a

That's what makes it possible to use my perfectly good sixty year old telephone, so I'm okay with that.. This 'new' way of doing things, requiring hardware upgrades every two years sucks balls.. My seven year old computer can barely play youtube videos. And when I load up a Slashdot page, I have time to go make and wolf down a sandwich. This is not good if you're trying to stay on a diet..

Not really, I watched the WTC collapse on a live video stream on my cable modem because we didn't have cable TV at the time. From a technology perspective the only thing thats changed to me is that my laptop runs longer... and hotter. I still pretty much do the same stuff (and I'm a developer) at about the same speed. The Internet is supposedly faster, but I really can't tell. I'm sure, my cable modem max speed has went from 3mb/s to 10mb/s but for the most part, 3 was just enough to do pretty much eve

Yep, they just sealed their fate, at least as far as any future phone systems I might install. I had been delaying buying chan_skype for Asterisk since they hadn't made it advanced enough to handle some of my needs for Asterisk but now it looks like I just saved myself a whole lot of $$$, and redirected even more that would have gone to Microsoft. I'm really glad they made this decision for me now rather than later.

Seriously though, I think that what Microsoft really wants with Skype is their userbase (and maybe their audio tech), and over time they will all be funneled into Windows Live. For some reason they don't think this is worth the money it costs as the users are unlikely to move on to Windows Live so they just cancel it.

If Microsoft wanted just the audio tech part of Skype, they would have simply buy it. Why? Because the audio part of Skype hasn't been made inhouse, but BOUGHT on the software market, and included in the product. Echo cancelation and codecs aren't Skype's work.

Oh please,.Windows ME was not a bad idea. It was designed to kill off the Windows 9x line so everyone (users and developers) would move to XP. How much of the software that failed on ME would also failed on XP had developers not been forced to remove their assumptions of being able to load drivers in config.sys and autoexec in real mode DOS?

Microsoft Bob was a product of its time. There were a lot of attempts by many companies to make computing easy for non-techy people by mimicking real world objects. It a

When Microsoft came and said 'We're going to buy you for more money than you deserve multiplied by about a hundred... Okay? Good, now, if you want us to continue with this deal, you listen to us from now on... now kill the Skype projects like the good little bitch I just paid for'

Its rather ignorant to ignore the fact that the high level people in Skype are probably talking fairly often to their future bosses... if you have ANY SENSE what so ever you do what they want because if you don't, they either ba

Yes, that's why this has happened before MS has any operational control of Skype because the merger hasn't finished yet.

Even if it was not a formal part of the deal, Skype is perfectly capable of reading the tea leaves regarding what direction Microsoft intends to go post acquisition. They have been talking to each other after all. It's perfectly plausible that Skype killed the product at the request (possibly implied request) of Microsoft. It's equally plausible it has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft. However the timing does lead one to wonder. It's not at all unusual for companies to start making changes in ad

Yes, I'm absolutely sure that the Skype executive that did this will get fired by Microsoft the moment they take operational control. "Why did you decide to kill off part of your base without consulting us first!", they will ask, and "We were about to take over your company, moron." they will continue. The Skype executive will mumble something about long term viability of Skype as a platform, and executing against strategic plans from 5 years ago, but the fact will remain: he will get fired for not checking